Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (11 November) . . Page.. 3890 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Moore has accused me of tub thumping. I can hardly be accused of tub thumping when I did nothing to advance this issue until I was approached by both the Chief Justice and the Director of Public Prosecutions on this matter. I can hardly be accused of being a knee-jerk reactionary based on no action at all in this area until urged to act in this area by those two senior officers in the ACT legal system. It hardly amounts to a tub thumping kind of campaign, does it?

I have made clear what the Government's priorities are. I have made clear that we need to act in this area. I have made clear that without passing amendments such as this, urged on us by the judiciary and by the prosecution service in this town, we are letting down the citizens of this Territory. We are exposing them to rises in crime in those areas without an effective response. I do not propose to go to the next election on this issue - and I will go to the next election on this issue if I have to - and say that the Liberal Government has failed to act in this area. I will point to what this Government has tried to do to address this problem - issues such as safety cameras, such as addressing prevalence of offences in the community, such as putting more police on the beat in this Territory. I will put those matters before the electorate and I will be judged on those matters; and, of course, so will you people be.

MR MOORE (11.15): Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to speak again on this matter.

Leave granted.

MR MOORE: I thank members. Mr Humphries, in the course of the debate, talked about armed robbery and referred to Justice Gallop saying that he is concerned that we might actually be encouraging armed robbery in this Territory.

Mr Stefaniak: That is his view and he is an experienced judge.

MR MOORE: "And he is an experienced judge", says Mr Stefaniak. Mr Humphries said that Justice Gallop has suggested that it might actually have the effect of encouraging armed robbery in the Territory because we have to give suspended sentences. I do not know whether to attribute that to Justice Gallop or to Mr Humphries, but it is nonsense. Let me read section 101 of the Crimes Act, which has the title "Armed Robbery":

A person who commits robbery and at the time of doing so has with him or her a firearm, an imitation firearm, an offensive weapon, an explosive or an imitation explosive is guilty of an offence punishable, on conviction, by imprisonment for 25 years.

Mr Humphries: That is a maximum sentence, not a minimum sentence.

MR MOORE: Twenty-five years! That is a maximum sentence. To suggest that a judge cannot put a first-time offender into gaol when there is a 25-year maximum penalty is absolute nonsense. What is the judge actually taking into account? Not the prevalence issue, but everything that is set out in section 429A of the Crimes Act and the things that we referred to before, such as the degree of responsibility of the person for the commission of the offence; the deterrent effect that any sentence or order under consideration may have on any person - not just on that person, but on any person; and the need to ensure that the person is adequately punished for the offence.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .